SynthesisHealth and quality of life outcomes2025
Mapping to estimate health state utility: a systematic review of development and limitations.
Synthesis in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Updated algorithms for direct and indirect mapping of WHOQOL-BREF to EQ-5D-5L utility scores using data from a multi-provincial Thai general population sample.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth utility measurement is critical for cost-utility analysis (CUA). However, clinical studies often lack direct utility data, and methods of measuring health utility vary across different periods and regions, resulting in missing utility information. Mapping, a method employed to infer utility when direct utility data is absent, has been widely applied in recent years but still faces challenges. This systematic review evaluates the current landscape, trends, and limitations of mapping studies and provides recommendations for improving study design and reporting standards.
methodsA literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and the HERC Database of Mapping Studies from 2018 to 2024. The study extracted information from the included studies and performed quality assessments based on existing mapping guidelines.
resultsOne hundred thirty-one studies were included, 92 focused on Mapping as the primary objective, five were reviews, 13 focused on methodology, and 21 focused on economic evaluation. The source measure, target measure, and models in mapping functions development remain EORTC-QLQ-C30 (n = 13), EQ-5D (n = 79), and OLS (n = 93). Studies now use larger sample sizes and a higher proportion of response Mapping, and model applications have increased in diversity. However, 32 studies still lack conceptual overlap analysis, and only 16 studies with repeated measurements addressed its issue. Additionally, two studies did not report the region of the sample and value set, while 27 had inconsistencies between the two regions.
conclusionsIn the last seven years, mapping studies have improved sample size, model application, and result reporting. However, limitations remain in analysing conceptual overlap, ensuring alignment between the sample and value set regions, and processing repeated measurements. To advance the quality of mapping studies, it is necessary to update mapping guidelines and ensure that all mapping functions are developed in compliance with them.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.